Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Respect for Judicial Precedent as a Limit on the Exercise of Public Power

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Rule of Law, Human Rights and Judicial Control of Power

Part of the book series: Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice ((IUSGENT,volume 61))

  • 1081 Accesses

Abstract

This article first explains where Argentina fits in the common law-civil law divide of legal families. A proper understanding of the Argentine legal system regarding precedent makes it necessary to next elaborate on the distinction between the horizontal and the vertical dimensions of stare decisis . I also examine the relevance of political interferences for compliance by other courts both in the horizontal and in the vertical dimensions just alluded.The article briefly highlights features of some Latin countries that impact negatively on the practice of precedent. I shall conclude that, those features notwithstanding, the practice of judicial precedent still constitutes a relevant stop to the abuse of public power by the political branches.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    antonio-carlos pereira menaut, temas de derecho constitucional español: una visión problemática, 76 (Follas Novas, Santiago de Compostela, 1996).

  2. 2.

    Konrad zweigert and Hein kötz, Introduction to Comparative Law, third revised edition, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1998 (translation from German by T. Weir), 260. See too Arthur L. goodhart, Precedent in English and Continental Law 50 law quarterly review 40, 41 (1934). This article, by he who preceded both H.L.A. Hart and R.M. Dworkin in the Jurisprudence chair at Oxford University, is regarded widely as a source of the utmost authority on the topic.

  3. 3.

    The most authoritative book on stare decisis is Sir Rupert Cross’s Precedent in English Law. See rupert cross with jim w. harris, precedent in english law (Oxford U. Press, 4th ed. 1991).

  4. 4.

    In what follows I will rely on some of my previously published work. See, especially, Santiago Legarre, Precedent in Argentine Law 57 loyola l. rev. 781 (2011). See too, Santiago Legarre and Julio C. Rivera Jr., Nature and Dimensions of Stare Decisis, in essays in honor of saúl litvinoff, 561 (Olivier Moréteau, Julio Romanach Jr. & Alberto Luis Zuppi eds. Claitor 2008).

  5. 5.

    H. L. A. hart, the concept of law, 10–11, 16, 213, 217–18 (Oxford U. Press, 2nd ed. 1994).

  6. 6.

    The reasons for the exclusion of constitutional questions from horizontal stare decisis at the level of the Supreme Court are provided in Justice Brandeis’s famous dissent in Burnet v. Coronado Oil and Gas Co. 285 U.S. 393, 406–08 (1932).

  7. 7.

    Id, at 405.

  8. 8.

    Id, at 406.

  9. 9.

    See e.g. the following examples of references to Justice Brandeis’s dictum in majority opinions of the United States Supreme Court: “Smith v. Allwright”, 321 U.S. 649, 665–666 (1944); “Glidden Co. v. Zdanok”, 370 U.S. 530, 543 (1962); “Edelman v. Jordan”, 415 U.S. 651, 671 (1974); “Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois”, 431 U.S. 720, 736 (1977); “Monell v. Department of Soc. Svcs.”, 436 U.S. 658, 695 (1978); Thomas v. Washington Gas Light Co., 448 U.S. 261, 273, note 18 (1980); “Payne v. Tennessee”, 501 U.S. 808, 827–828 (1991); Hubbard v. United States, 513 U.S. 695, 712, note 11 (1995); “Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida”, 571 U.S. 44, 63 (1996); “Agostini v. Felton”, 521 U.S. 203, 235–236 (1997).

  10. 10.

    john finnis, Natural Law and Legal Reasoning, in robert p. george, natural law theory 134–57 (Oxford U. Press 1992).

  11. 11.

    mauro cappelletti, the judicial process in comparative perspective 52 (Clarendon Press 1989).

  12. 12.

    In Spanish the right expression appears to be “obligatoriedad atenuada”. See Santiago Legarre & Julio C. Rivera Jr., La obligatoriedad atenuada de los fallos de la Corte Suprema y el stare decisis vertical, 2009-E l.l. 820, 821 (2009) (Arg.).

  13. 13.

    Argentina is, at least in theory, a federal system much like the United States. Our “provincias” are similar to states. They have, therefore, courts of their own: provincial courts. Furthermore, unlike state courts in the United States, these provincial courts apply some national law, as explained in Santiago Legarre, A Departure from the Rationale Behind the American System in the Argentine Constitution, 16 rechtsgeschichte, zeitschrift des max-planck-instituts für europäische rechtsgeschichte, 85, 86–87 (2010).

  14. 14.

    See Julio C. Rivera Jr. & Santiago Legarre, La obligatoriedad de los fallos de la Corte Suprema de Justicia de la Nación desde la perspectiva de los tribunales inferiores in LA PRIMACÍA DE LA PERSONA, 1109 (Jaime Arancibia Mattar & José Ignacio Martínez Estay eds. LegalPublishing-AbeledoPerrot 2009) (explaining this issue at length and with more nuances).

  15. 15.

    Corte Suprema de Justicia de la Nacion [CSJN] [National Supreme Court of Justice], 6/10/1948, “Santín, Jacinto c. Impuestos Internos/recurso extraordinario”, Fallos de la Corte [Fallos] (1948-212-51, 59) (Arg.).

  16. 16.

    On this question the following case is emblematic and it has been consistently followed, at least in theory: Corte Suprema de Justicia de la Nacion [CSJN] [National Supreme Court of Justice], 4/7/1985, “Cerámica San Lorenzo s. incidente de prescripción/ recurso extraordinario”, Fallos de la Corte [Fallos] (1985-307-1094) (Arg.).

  17. 17.

    Professor Garro, an Argentine colleague who teaches at Columbia University in New York City, is of a similar view. Alejandro M. Garro, Eficacia y autoridad del precedente constitucional en América latina: las lecciones del Derecho Comparado, 1989-I revista jurídica de buenos aires 22, 23 (1989) (Arg.). This is also the view of Alberto F. Garay and Alejo Toranzo, even if their reasons are not identical to mine. See Los efectos de las sentencias de la Corte Suprema de Justicia de la Nación, 2005-IV J.A. 1093, 1094 (2005) (Arg.). But the view that I share with Garro, Garay and Toranzo is far from unanimous. Respected Argentine scholars think that at the level of the Supreme Court our system is substantially identical to stare decisis. See, e.g., GERMÁN BIDART CAMPOS, II-B TRATADO ELEMENTAL DE DERECHO CONSTITUCIONAL, 561 (Ediar, Buenos Aires, 3rd ed. 2004); Néstor Pedro Sagüés, Eficacia vinculante o no vinculante de la jurisprudencia de la Corte Suprema de Justicia de la Nación, 93 E.D. 891, 892 (1981) (Arg.); alberto b. bianchi, 1 control de constitucionalidad 353 (Ábaco, Buenos Aires, 2nd ed. 2002).

  18. 18.

    Santiago Legarre, La obligatoriedad horizontal de los fallos de la Corte Suprema argentina y el stare decisis, 4 derecho público iberoamericano, Año 2, abril de 2014, 237, 249.

  19. 19.

    alberto f. garay, la doctrina del precedente en la corte suprema, 215 (Abeledo Perrot, Buenos Aires, 2013).

  20. 20.

    See Legarre, supra note 19, 251.

  21. 21.

    [1966] 1 WLR 1234. For an explanation of the “practice statement” see Cross, supra note XXXX at 102–08, 114–15.

  22. 22.

    See e.g., Alberto F. Garay, El precedente judicial en la Corte Suprema, 1 revista jurídica de la universidad de palermo 51, 57–59; 76–77 (1997) (Arg.).

  23. 23.

    See cappelletti, supra note 11, 132.

  24. 24.

    For examples, José Sebastián Elias, Massa y la saga de la pesificación: lo bueno,lo malo y lo feo, 2008-II J.A. 1326, 1327 (2008) (Arg.) and see Legarre, supra note 4, 788–791.

  25. 25.

    In what follows I will rely on some of my previously published work. See, especially, Santiago Legarre, “New Trends in Latin American Constitutionalism: an Overview” 4 Notre Dame Journal of International & Comparative Law 1 (2014).

  26. 26.

    The idea is perfectly conveyed in the title of one the books by Argentine jurist Carlos S. Nino: Un país al margen de la ley, Ariel, Madrid, 2005.

  27. 27.

    These, incidentally, are the words used in order to describe the famous magician that went by the name of Harry Potter. Perhaps Mr. Potter’s ancestors came from my part of the world…? See http://harrypotter.wikia.com/wiki/Slytherin, last visited on 29 April 2015.

  28. 28.

    The 1853 Argentine constitution banned a second term for then president Menem, who had been elected in 1989. The constitutional amendment of 1994 removed this impediment and in 1995 Mr. Menem got his second term, with the massive support of the people of Argentina.

  29. 29.

    Constitution of Massachusetts, 1780, Art. XXX: In the government of this commonwealth, the legislative department shall never exercise the executive and judicial powers, or either of them; the executive shall never exercise the legislative and judicial powers, or either of them; the judicial shall never exercise the legislative and executive powers, or either of them; to the end it may be a government of laws, and not of men. Emphasis added.

  30. 30.

    The quote is part of an interesting survey of Louisiana judges. See Mary Garvey Algero, The Sources of Law and the Value of Precedent: A Comparative and Empirical Study of a Civil Law State in a Common Law Nation, 65 la. l. rev. 775, 810 (2005).

  31. 31.

    See Alberto F. Garay, supra note 19, 214–215; 236–238 (explaining the situation in Argentina).

  32. 32.

    See Santiago Legarre, supra note 4, 788–791 (commenting on the effect of political interferences in the role of Argentine courts).

References

  • BIANCHI, ALBERTO B. Control de constitucionalidad (Ábaco, Buenos Aires, 2d ed. 2002).

    Google Scholar 

  • BIDART CAMPOS, GERMÁN. II-B Tratado elemental de Derecho Constitucional, (Ediar, Buenos Aires, 3rd ed. 2004).

    Google Scholar 

  • CAPPELLETTI, MAURO The Judicial Process in Comparative Perspective (Clarendon Press 1989).

    Google Scholar 

  • CROSS, RUPERT WITH HARRIS, JIM W, Precedent in English Law (Oxford U. Press, 4th ed. 1991).

    Google Scholar 

  • FINNIS, JOHN, Natural Law and Legal Reasoning, in Robert P. George, Natural Law Theory (Oxford U. Press 1992).

    Google Scholar 

  • GARAY, ALBERTO F. El precedente judicial en la Corte Suprema, 1 Revista Jurídica de la Universidad de Palermo (1997) (Arg.).

    Google Scholar 

  • GARAY, ALBERTO F. La Doctrina del Precedente en la Corte Suprema, (Abeledo Perrot, Buenos Aires, 2013).

    Google Scholar 

  • GARRO, ALEJANDRO M. Eficacia y autoridad del precedente constitucional en América latina: las lecciones del Derecho Comparado, 1989-I Revista Jurídica de Buenos Aires 22, 23 (1989) (Arg.).

    Google Scholar 

  • GARVEY ALGERO, MARY. The Sources of Law and the Value of Precedent: A Comparative and Empirical Study of a Civil Law State in a Common Law Nation, 65 La. L. Rev. 775, 810 (2005).

    Google Scholar 

  • GOODHART, ARTHUR L. Precedent in English and Continental Law 50 Law Quarterly Review 40, 41 (1934).

    Google Scholar 

  • HART, H. L. A. The Concept of Law, (Oxford U. Press, 2d ed. 1994).

    Google Scholar 

  • LEGARRE, SANTIAGO. A Departure from the Rationale Behind the American System in the Argentine Constitution, 16 Rechtsgeschichte, Zeitschrift des Max-Planck-Instituts für europäische Rechtsgeschichte, (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  • LEGARRE, SANTIAGO. “New Trends in Latin American Constitutionalism: an Overview” 4 Notre Dame Journal of International & Comparative Law 1 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  • LEGARRE, SANTIAGO. Precedent in Argentine Law, Loyola L. Rev. 781 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  • LEGARRE, SANTIAGO and RIVERA JR., JULIO C. La obligatoriedad atenuada de los fallos de la Corte Suprema y el stare decisis vertical, 2009-E L.L. 820, 821 (2009) (Arg.).

    Google Scholar 

  • LEGARRE, SANTIAGO and RIVERA JR., JULIO C. La obligatoriedad de los fallos de la Corte Suprema de Justicia de la Nación desde la perspectiva de los tribunales inferiores in LA PRIMACÍA DE LA PERSONA, 1109 (Jaime Arancibia Mattar & José Ignacio Martínez Estay eds. LegalPublishing-AbeledoPerrot 2009).

    Google Scholar 

  • LEGARRE, SANTIAGO and RIVERA JR., JULIO C. Nature and Dimensions of Stare Decisis, in Essays in Honor of Saúl Litvinoff, (Olivier Moréteau, Julio Romanach Jr. & Alberto Luis Zuppi eds. Claitor 2008).

    Google Scholar 

  • NINO, CARLOS S. Un país al margen de la ley, Ariel, Madrid, 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  • PEREIRA MENAUT, ANTONIO-CARLOS. Temas de Derecho Constitucional Español: Una Visión Problemática, (Follas Novas, Santiago de Compostela, 1996).

    Google Scholar 

  • SAGÜÉS, NÉSTOR PEDRO. Eficacia vinculante o no vinculante de la jurisprudencia de la Corte Suprema de Justicia de la Nación, E.D. (1981) (Arg.).

    Google Scholar 

  • ZWEIGERT, KONRAD and KÖTZ, HEIN, Introduction to Comparative Law, third revised edition, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1998 (translation from German by T. Weir), 260.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Universidad Católica Argentina, Av. Alicia Moreau de Justo 1400, Ciudad Autonoma de Buenos Aires, Argentina

    Santiago Legarre

Authors
  1. Santiago Legarre
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Santiago Legarre .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, University of Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany

    Rainer Arnold

  2. University of the Andes, Santiago, Las Condes, Chile

    José Ignacio Martínez-Estay

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Legarre, S. (2017). Respect for Judicial Precedent as a Limit on the Exercise of Public Power. In: Arnold, R., Martínez-Estay, J. (eds) Rule of Law, Human Rights and Judicial Control of Power. Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice, vol 61. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-55186-9_11

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-55186-9_11

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-55184-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-55186-9

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation